I’m a lay judge, or a “flay” judge. I can flow the round. I have no debate coaching or competitive experience. I have judged both LD and Parli since Jan 2011.
As for speed, I can typically keep up with the rate of delivery from experienced debaters. I find that clarity is more of a problem than speed, especially at the beginning of the first speech. After that clarity and speed seem to find a comfortable pace. I tell the participants before a round that I will yell “clear” when I can’t understand them.
I don’t judge debaters on “performance” but I do prefer when debaters exhibit confidence when they speak. A little snarkiness is also appreciated. Have some fun. I don’t judge debaters on their use of flowery language, style of speech or manner of dress as I understand some lay judges have.
I hope to hear substantive arguments and counter arguments, not just evidence read. Give me some reasons why I should prefer your evidence. Analytics are encouraged. I look for a clash of ideas and expect the affirmative to prove their case and defend their position. Provide some time lines around your impacts. How long before human extinction or nuclear war? What are the other impacts before the doomsday scenario?
By default I’ll judge on a paradigm of Stock Issues. If you tell me, I can judge Net Benefits, or however else you want to present the round.
Procedurals can become very technical and that’s where a debater might lose me. Using a lot of jargon to attack the framework or going for a Kritik is something that I might not follow well. I understand the concepts, so if you can explain it in everyday terms, help yourself. I don’t have the training and experience that you do. Make it accessible to me.
Topicality is a voter. I’m okay with T but I have a high threshold.
If an argument is dropped it is won by the side that presented it. It must actually be dropped, not just claimed to have been dropped. Both sides often say that the other side has dropped or conceded an argument. The effect of a dropped argument on the ballot will depend on the weight of that argument.
Likewise, just because someone says “turn” does not mean it’s true. Explain, spell it out. Similarly when you want to "perm, do both," tell me how both work for your argument.
You may tell me where to vote, that helps crystallize your argument. Be careful, I will vote there if you tell me I should.
I have read the rules for debate several times, and I review them before ever tournament. After every tournament I honestly come away with a more enlightened understanding of those rules and the art of debate. I enforce the rules to the best of my ability and according to my understanding.
*
I’m a lay judge, or a “flay” judge. I can flow the round. I have no debate coaching or competitive experience. I have judged both LD and Parli since Jan 2011.
As for speed, I can typically keep up with the rate of delivery from experienced debaters. I find that clarity is more of a problem than speed, especially at the beginning of the first speech. After that clarity and speed seem to find a comfortable pace. I tell the participants before a round that I will yell “clear” when I can’t understand them.
I don’t judge debaters on “performance” but I do prefer when debaters exhibit confidence when they speak. A little snarkiness is also appreciated. Have some fun. I don’t judge debaters on their use of flowery language, style of speech or manner of dress as I understand some lay judges have.
I hope to hear substantive arguments and counter arguments, not just evidence read. Give me some reasons why I should prefer your evidence. Analytics are encouraged. I look for a clash of ideas and expect the affirmative to prove their case and defend their position. Provide some time lines around your impacts. How long before human extinction or nuclear war? What are the other impacts before the doomsday scenario?
By default I’ll judge on a paradigm of Stock Issues. If you tell me, I can judge Net Benefits, or however else you want to present the round.
Procedurals can become very technical and that’s where a debater might lose me. Using a lot of jargon to attack the framework or going for a Kritik is something that I might not follow well. I understand the concepts, so if you can explain it in everyday terms, help yourself. I don’t have the training and experience that you do. Make it accessible to me.
Topicality is a voter. I’m okay with T but I have a high threshold.
If an argument is dropped it is won by the side that presented it. It must actually be dropped, not just claimed to have been dropped. Both sides often say that the other side has dropped or conceded an argument. The effect of a dropped argument on the ballot will depend on the weight of that argument.
Likewise, just because someone says “turn” does not mean it’s true. Explain, spell it out. Similarly when you want to "perm, do both," tell me how both work for your argument.
You may tell me where to vote, that helps crystallize your argument. Be careful, I will vote there if you tell me I should.
I have read the rules for debate several times, and I review them before ever tournament. After every tournament I honestly come away with a more enlightened understanding of those rules and the art of debate. I enforce the rules to the best of my ability and according to my understanding.